The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-02-24
SENATOR BELLS BOUNDARY BILL.

it was fixed by the treaty of 18l9-that l;
along the line laid down in Melish's maj
as the Tooth meridian of west longitude
If there we're no established rule of law ap
plicable to this requirement of the treaty,i'
would seem-no one who has seen the old
map would deny that the boundary Is
where the bill declared it to be, or that the
right of Texas to the territory in question
was originally perfect. But, if authorities
are needed to fortify this proposition they
may be found in the argument of Bound
airy Commissioners Breckenridge, Bur
ges and Freeman, published in the pro-
ceedings of the commission, pages lf7 70
151. They there showed that "public
treaties are interpreted like other laws
and contracts; (Wheaton's international
law, Chap. II, p. 1863 that 1--WE are to con-
strue treaty as we would any other in
strument, public or private, y
whether the parties to it are A. or B., or
two independent states;" (Vattell's law of
nations, Chetty's note, p. pa, ed. 1854D
that in the case of Noonan VS.. Lee, I'D
Blacks reports the United States supreme
court held that where deed refers to map
for the purpose of describing boundary
il matters not where the map is, it,
must have the same effect as if it were IN
corporated into the deed which refers to
it for description, and that in the case of
McIver's Lessee VS.. Walker, (4th Wharton,
D. 445.) where the courses and distances
of the field notes in the patent would not
embrace any part of the land sued for, or
even touch certain creek, on both sides
of which the plaintiff claimed his land to
lie, but which was not called for in the
patent, except by reference to a plat of
the survey, the same high court held that
the calls of the patent for course and dis
lance must yield to the delineation, in the
plat, of SO great land mark as a creek,
which was laid down in the plat as passing
centrally across the survey, and held the
the survey was on both sides of the cresk,
according to the map of it referred to in
the patent. II appears these precedents,
followed in many 6ubse1uent cases, grew
into a rule, which is directly applicable to
the woods o the treaty of 1919, referring
for description TO Molisu'. map, and re-
leyed the BOUNDARY question of any pos
siblo doubt as to tae 2ciginal right of
Texas. But, it is supposed by some that
Texas has failed to as7 her right so long
thai she has lost IL
Wo venture to suggest, however,
that no mere taiiGse TO claim could injure
a right originally perfect as that VI Texas
in this case; nor could mere declaration
of an opposing claim do 20 till thore was
some actual adverse occupancy Of the
region in controversy.
The fret actual possession of the dis
puted ground by Kansas appears from
her official records to have been about the
year 1873, only fourteen years ago. But
the supreme court of the United States
has recognized it as a rule that twenty
years adverse possession is necessary to
raise a bar in equity between individuals,
and in strong language have indicated
that much longer possession is neces-
sary to bar state. After stating the rule
of twenty years as between individuals,
the court proceeded: "But it would be
impossible, with any sembance of justice,
to adopt such rule of limitation in the
case before us. For here two political
communities are concerned, who cannot
act with the same promptness as indi-
viduals, and the boundary in question was
in wild, unsettled country, and the error
not likely to be discovered until the lands
were granted by the respective colonies
and the settlements approached the dis
puted line" Rhode Island VS.. Mass, XIV
Peters, PIP. 272-3.
How appropos this language to the cir
cumstances of the present boundary ques-
ton! The line in this instance is even
yet Gina Wild unsettled country" and till
within six years the old map, by which
alone its true locality could be shown, was
lost and out of reach; and, only after re-
peated efforts, and within the last twelve
months, has the state of Texas been able
to obtain true copy of it from its place
of concealment.
But here is another view of the matter.
There has existed all the while an express
agreement between Texas and the United
States, which effectually prevents any bar
to Texas from ever so long possession
of the disputed territory-the treaty of
1888, in which both governments agreed
that till it should suit both parties TO
mark the boundary in question, each
should occupy in that quarter without in
reference from the other. There was
solemn compact which permitted either
government to occupy territory of the
other in that region, subordinate, how
ever, to the future marking of the line;
and whatever present possession is held
there has arisen under that compact. The
law of such a case seems to be that such
subordinate or permisslve possession,
"however long it may in point of fact